As the shift away from fossil fuels gathers pace, the Coalition has turned to an emissions-free technology with a long and contentious history — nuclear fission. These are the numbers you should keep in mind when thinking about its place in Australia’s energy transition.

I encourage you to at least glance through the article before you leave a comment that other commenters will dunk on you for.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] BadlyDrawnRhino@aussie.zone 12 points 3 months ago (8 children)

I think those quotes at the bottom are a really great summary of the problem with the Coalition's nuclear plan:

“As I said, from an engineering point of view nuclear power is an excellent form of energy,” Dr Finkel said.

“What we can’t do is say, ‘Oh, nuclear is easy, therefore let’s stop all the wind and jump on to nuclear.’

“It just can’t possibly happen in the time-frame that we need. But that doesn’t mean we should rule it out because there’s that long term benefit.”

I could see the merits of beginning to invest in nuclear now, given the time required to get it up and running, but only so long as the shift to renewables isn't interrupted. Unfortunately, I think the LNP see this as a way to seem like they give a shit about climate change, but really it's just a way to buy them another decade or two to line their pockets with coal.

[–] zik@aussie.zone 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

Nuclear power's already much more expensive than every other mainstream option, and the gap is widening every year. In twenty years time it's going to be so much more expensive it'll be ridiculous. No one's going to want to buy power for several times the cost of all the other options.

The idea's not only dumb - it's completely commercially unviable.

[–] psud@aussie.zone 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Remember it's not really about building nuclear, it's about promising nuclear in a short enough timeframe to prevent investment in renewables, and then keeping the date moving steadily into the future until maybe 20 years later a reactor is built. It's about giving 20 more years to coal (and coal has the most radioactive exhaust of any power generation technology)

[–] Emmy@lemmy.nz 1 points 3 months ago

Unviable, unless they subsidise their nuclear mates.

[–] unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone 1 points 3 months ago

The idea’s not only dumb - it’s completely commercially unviable

But I thought they were supposed to be good economic managers

load more comments (4 replies)